The use of deliberative democracy in policymaking has been gaining traction of late. Matilda Martin finds its advocates hoping Andy Burnham embraces it in government
Advertisement
Andy Burnham’s first major policy speech after winning the Makerfield by-election was a full-throated battle cry for devolution. “Imagine what it would feel like to live in a country wired to work for local people instead of against them,” he asked of his audience.
The incoming prime minister well knows, however, that it will take more than a few more powers for metro mayors to restore trust in politics, which is at an all-time low. Some around him believe that, to make a reality of his dream of a “country wired to work for local people”, something altogether more radical will be needed.
Advocates of so-called ‘deliberative democracy’ hope Burnham may adopt at least some of their agenda.
Advertisement
“Deliberative democracy is a way of bringing people into the policy decisions that are being made that affect their lives,” explains Miriam Levin, director of participatory programmes at Demos.
Unlike a run-of-the-mill consultation, the process of deliberative democracy runs “all the way through to the end point, and the recommendations are acted on”, Levin adds. “Because that’s the thing that rebuilds trust between citizens and state, which is on the floor right now.”
Such an approach aims to rebuild trust between people and the state, with politicians and policymakers working with the public to tackle big policy areas, ensuring that their voices feed directly into the finished product. Its advocates see the current form of policymaking as too limited and partisan, calling for approaches such as citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries and citizens’ panels.
Advertisement
The idea of deliberative democracy and its various forms has been around for a long time, but interest in the process and what it can do for policymaking has been growing among MPs in recent years.
Some in the Burnham team are open to the idea, and the approach has already been embraced in some areas of Greater Manchester.
In November last year, Burnham was present at the launch of the Participation Playbook, a resource created by the Greater Manchester Integrated Care Partnership, “bringing together tools and examples of participatory methods from citizens’ assemblies and participatory budgeting to co-production and digital democracy”.
The document states that for too long, “decisions have been made about people, not with them” and a new approach in Greater Manchester will see a world in which “decisions are made by the people, for the people – where community power and participatory democracy thrive”.
Advertisement
Burnham ally Neal Lawson believes the use of deliberative democracy could be something that Burnham’s team is open to exploring. Reflecting on Burnham’s policy priorities, he points to a change in the voting system to proportional representation, highlighting that a citizens’ assembly-style approach could fit well within a national commission.
Wigan MP and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy was a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Deliberative Democracy. She is a long-time key Burnham ally and was the first Cabinet minister to join Burnham in Makerfield on the campaign trail.
“There are people around him, like Josh Simons, who are quite pro-citizens’ assemblies as I understand it,” Lawson adds, referring to the former minister who stood down as an MP in May to pave the way for Burnham’s route back to Westminster. Simons is expected to play a key role in the new Makerfield MP’s government.
Simons told The House in 2024 – when he was director of Labour Together, before entering Parliament – that he favoured citizens’ assemblies for subjects concerning public health or other behaviour where the policy solution requires people to comply, such as a smoking ban.
Advertisement
“It can be a political way of making a decision that requires the consent of a certain group of people for the policy to actually work. The political opportunities that it opens up for the politicians are much more important than any enduring legitimacy it could get for that policy,” he said.
Simons’ track record shows an affinity for deliberative democracy when it comes to tricky policy areas. As a minister, he oversaw the government’s digital ID policy. First announced by Keir Starmer in September last year, the initiative prompted an immense backlash. Labour figures, including those in government, widely thought the initial bid to communicate the policy – rushed, and framed in terms of migration control rather than the fundamentals of a modern state – was flawed.
PoliticsHome revealed in December that ministers would tour the country in early 2026 to discuss the plan with voters, with the government later revealing shortly after Simons’ departure that 100 people would be randomly selected from across Britain to contribute to the government’s consultation on digital ID.
Ian Murray, the minister now responsible for the policy – and a Burnham ally – is positive about the impact of the approach.
Advertisement
Murray would like to see more uses of deliberative democracy such as the citizens’ assembly in government policymaking. Speaking to The House, he says that, in the past, the country has tended to have referenda for some of the biggest issues that people are most concerned about “with a binary choice on very complicated questions”.
The use of the citizens’ assembly in feeding into the digital ID policy allowed the government to work in partnership with the public, Murray said, and was a way to tackle the “anxiety and misinformation” that existed around the policy.
He adds that while those involved may still have disagreed at the end of the process, they “at least understood it and were able to feed back their anxieties to develop the policy”.
Lawson, who campaigned for a citizens’ assembly for Brexit, believes that a more collaborative approach could be used for immigration and welfare when it comes to finding “the balance between rights and responsibilities”.
Advertisement
“If his slogan for the by-election was ‘Andy for us’, his slogan for government should be ‘Andy by us’,” Lawson adds.
The former strategy adviser to Tony Blair believes that deliberative democracy, combined with proportional representation, devolving power down to the lowest possible levels and reinventing the House of Lords could take the heat out of politics and bring people back together.
A Burnham spokesperson says he “has been clear that Westminster politics is broken and that Britain needs a fundamental shift of power out of the centre and into the hands of the people and places best able to use it”.
If we are going to crack that unity issue and that cohesiveness, but also take away the polarisation of politics, we’ve got to go much more round a deliberative approach
Advertisement
They add that Burnham’s approach is “about giving people and communities greater agency over the decisions that affect their lives”, which would mean “place-based collaboration, a new operating principle for government, with power flowing to every region and nation of the UK, decisions taken closer to the people they affect, and a politics that is less about point scoring and more about problem solving”.
MPs across all parties are also warming to the approach. In early 2026, the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee travelled to Leicester, Renfrewshire and North Tyneside, bringing together locals to discuss and debate what is currently one of the most contentious and polarising topics in the UK: immigration. The citizens’ assembly-style events brought together 100 people from across the three locations in March and May to feed into the committee’s recommendations to the government on immigration.
Karen Bradley, Conservative MP and chair of the committee, tells The House that the motivation behind the process was to make a series of recommendations to government that took the public’s views on board. “The problem is that it’s such a contested area that getting to the nub of what people actually think is really tough, and it’s also so easy to merge and to confuse the different issues,” Bradley explains.
Advertisement
The idea of a citizens’ assembly was born. Bradley says it presented the opportunity to bring together a group of people “without shouting, without social media and the algorithms” to hear: “What do people think is important? What are they concerned about?” For Bradley, the approach would mean that the committee would hear from a truly representative portion of the public, not just those who are likely to engage in policymaking in the first place.
Labour MP Jo White, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, is a recent convert to the use of deliberative democracy. White would like to see a Burnham government use this approach in policymaking but is wary of how the media “deals with it” as she believes some media outlets could “create cynicism” around it, meaning “people don’t participate”.
While it will need to be sold to the public, White is certain of its benefits: “[Burnham’s] biggest demand is to stop the boats and deal with illegal immigration, and yet his policies and his values have been socially liberal.” It will be important for him, she says, to bring those issues together and create “consensus within the country and he’s making the right choices for the whole country”.
She adds: “How he manages that may well be through bringing more people into that arena and giving people the opportunity to think through the ideas.”
Advertisement
Back in SW1, the impact on Westminster and party relations could also be positively impacted by a more deliberative approach. Rachael Maskell, who sat as a vice-chair on the past APPG for Deliberative Democracy alongside Nandy, thinks such an approach is essential: “If we are going to crack that unity issue and that cohesiveness, but also take away the polarisation of politics, we’ve got to go much more round a deliberative approach.”
She also points to party unity as well as country unity, claiming that in the two years under a Labour government, policy “hasn’t derived from that space of cohesive understanding and trying to get to what would be the right solution. People with polarised views, even within the party, have not been brought into that space of understanding”. Without that space being created, Maskell says one part of the party is segregated, alongside their constituents.
While this approach will be essential to building consensus when it comes to febrile and polarising topics at a national level, councils have also begun to get involved. Demos is currently trialling a project to build and test a new model for participatory local democracy. Under the approach, “thousands of people will have the opportunity to shape local government policy on an issue affecting their area”.
The House joined one such session on a Saturday over Zoom where residents in South Staffordshire were discussing the approach to an updated local planning strategy – one of many sessions they had attended. Over five hours, a group of local residents discussed the pros and cons of different approaches, mediated by the Demos team and with council staff on hand to answer queries. Such a mediated approach was starkly different from the often febrile and inflamed tensions that can exist online, especially when it comes to local planning.
Advertisement
Speaking at the end of the session, The House heard from residents who said the process had “opened my eyes and made me realise things about South Staffordshire and my whole community”, while another said it had been nice to be in a safe environment and voice opinions.
While such an approach across the board may be attractive, it is time-consuming. If he enters No 10 later this month, Burnham will inherit a country split at the seams and juggling the pressure of a looming general election in 2029. What he chooses to prioritise – and how he chooses to do it – is still up for debate.
It’s easy to assume that the theatre is a world of glitz and glamour. A place where performers have their names in lights and live lives of luxury.
But many theatre workers face the same challenges common across all sectors. Unpredictable hours and pay, difficulty achieving work-life balance, a general sense of precarity.
Performers and other staff in the Equity union have been pushing for an improvement in their terms. And they’ve already had success.
A new deal for theatre workers
Equity members have voted to ratify a new three-year agreement with the Society of London Theatre (SOLT). It covers pay and conditions for performers and stage management working in the West End.
Advertisement
The agreement runs from April 2026 to April 2029. It got approval from 98% of members voting, on a turnout of 75%.
Under the agreement, minimum rates will rise by at least 13.5% over three years. It also improves holiday entitlement and family leave, supports better work-life balance, strengthens equality and inclusion provisions, and recognises additional responsibilities.
Alongside improved notice and scheduling guarantees for theatre performers and stage management, the agreement provides producers and managers with more modern scheduling arrangements, simplifies tour planning, and gives both sides greater certainty over its three-year term.
SOLT and Equity thank the members of their respective negotiating committees, and all those who contributed to reaching the agreement.
Advertisement
Paul W Fleming, general secretary of Equity, said:
For over a decade, Equity has sought to increase annual leave, reduce rehearsal weeks, and improve work-life balance on the West End.
Not only does this agreement achieve these objectives for the first time, but it also lifts minimum pay to a record high in real terms.
We’re encouraged by SOLT’s stated aspiration to use this agreement as a starting point for more regular high-level exchanges on terms and conditions. There is no reason this cannot be the start of modern terms and conditions, and the beginning of the end of low pay on the West End.
Hannah Essex, co-chief executive of the Society of London Theatre, said:
Advertisement
This agreement delivers meaningful improvements to pay and working conditions, strengthens work-life balance, and gives the West End a clear and stable framework through to 2029.
It represents a significant commitment from producers at a time when costs are rising faster than inflation and higher employers’ National Insurance contributions are compounding the strain on theatres.
Even as average ticket prices remain below pre-pandemic levels in real terms, theatres have once again been excluded from targeted business rates relief.
Government must now recognise the cumulative pressure on the sector and ensure policy supports continued investment in the workforce, in productions, and in audiences.
At the opera too
Opera singers are also demanding improved pay, work-life balance and clarity of their terms and conditions.
Advertisement
Negotiations between Equity, represented by a working group of members together with union officials, and UK Theatre / SOLT are set to begin, after Equity submitted its claim on 30 July.
Equity is demanding improvements to the agreement that sets minimum standards on pay, terms and conditions for opera singers, and covers principals, covers and freelance singers working in UK Theatre / SOLT member opera companies.
The claim calls for improved weekly pay, especially to support the lowest paid, and to reflect changing performance patterns in the industry.
It also includes demands for improved notice of scheduling for a better work-life balance and family friendly working, and calls for clearer terms and conditions for artists and engagers.
Advertisement
Commenting on the claim, Equity Singers & Dancers official Lottie Stables said:
The demands from Equity’s membership are clear – for too long they have seen their pay stagnate, whilst being expected to show ever more flexibility with their working patterns.
This needs to stop. If managers are serious about artists’ wellbeing and dignity, they must address the demands of this claim and ensure fair weekly pay, improved scheduling and transparent terms for all singers.
Equity will submit a claim for improvements to terms and conditions for stage management across opera and ballet later in 2026.
Jarrar was arrested for supposedly making “public statements that advocated for the detestation and harm against members of the Israeli and Jewish communities”, Toronto police said.
Advertisement
The force added that he “acted for the benefit of, and in association with, Hamas, a designated terrorist group”. His reported actual words did not mention the banned group:
Teach your children the Zionist entity is the enemy. Teach your children that the resistance is an honour.
Jarrar’s lawyer said his client was innocent and being targeted for speaking against the murder of civilians. He added that Jarrar had not been charged with what the police said he was arrested for.
He faces a single charge arising from speaking at public demonstrations. No violence, no weapon, no one harmed. Speaking out at a protest about the killing of civilians is protected expression, not terrorism.
The police told the media he ‘advocated for detestation and harm’ but he is not charged with that. We’ll be looking closely at how and why this case came to be, and we’re confident it won’t hold up when measured against the law.
Police have provided no additional details or evidence, citing court restrictions for reporting on the case.
Advertisement
Impunity for the opposite side
Meanwhile, the Canadian double standard is no less clear than its equivalent in the US. In 2024, Ilan-Reuben Abramov attacked anti-genocide demonstrators with a nail gun while screaming:
Every fucking Palestinian will die.
Abramov was charged but has never been brought to trial, leading campaigners to suspect the charges have been quietly dropped.
In February 2025, far-right extremist Eli Schwarz was arrested after threatening anti-genocide protesters. He admitted to police that he was a member of the terrorist group, Jewish Defence League.
When arrested, he was wearing a t-shirt praising Zionist terrorist Meir Kahane. Police found a rifle with scope at his home, along with 10 boxes of ammunition.
Advertisement
Schwarz was charged with making threats and improperly storing ammunition but has not been prosecuted.
In December 2025, Gabriella Bodis was charged with assault after threatening anti-genocide protesters with ‘reagent grade’ (high strength) ammonium hydroxide, which is capable of severe damage to the eyes and skin. She has not yet been prosecuted.
Students in Canada have denounced the charges against Ahmad Jarrar.
We’ve written before at HuffPost UK about how Hobnobs’ name actually has a meaning ― the “hob” refers to their homemade look, while the “nob” part (ooer missus) has to do with its knobbly texture.
So you’d expect Snickers to have a similarly self-referential or witty brand, right? Maybe the “snick” is like “sneak”, because of the hidden peanut layer?
Advertisement
No. It was named after a horse.
What?
Yep! According to none other than Mars, the owner of Snickers, “The very first SNICKERS Bar, named after the family horse, was manufactured in Chicago, US, and sold for five cents.”
And per Mars Equestrian (yep, they’re the same Mars ― seems they really like horses), “Frank C. and Ethel V. Mars’ Milky Way Farm in Tennessee was well known for producing Thoroughbred racing champions, including the 1940 Kentucky Derby Winner, Gallahadion.”
Advertisement
The Mars family still breed thoroughbred horses and even has an equestrian sponsorship across multiple disciplines.
Per The Equine Chronicle, the family had good reason to appreciate Snickers the animal ― he was a winning racehorse.
Advertisement
Unfortunately, Snickers passed away “less than a month” before the launch of the bar in 1930. Hence the family named the iconic bar after their recently-departed horse (aww).
Well, sad as that is, I’m struggling to think of a better legacy…
According to National Geographic, crows are some of the most intelligent birds in the world. They have also always been held in incredibly high esteem and are considered to be symbols of prophecy, transformation, change, and freedom.
However, as majestic and revered as these birds are, they are also not to be messed with.
According to Science World: “Crows are incredibly territorial during May and June. They are known to dive and strike humans not just once, but repetitively until the human in question has moved a good distance away from the nest.”
In fact… you may actually want to be a little more friendly with crows and even befriend one. Yes, really.
Advertisement
Why you should befriend a crow
So, maybe you don’t need to specifically befriend a crow but you definitely need to stay on their good side.
This is because a five-year study by scientists at the University of Washington has found they possess an unusually good memory for human faces linked to a stressful event.
Not only do crows remember the faces of humans for five years, but these clever corvids can also warn their friends and family about you, too. I don’t know about you but being the target of a murder of local crows sounds bloody terrifying.
Advertisement
However, if you do choose to buddy up with a crow, they’ll actually bring you gifts. They may be fiercely protective and hold a hell of a grudge but they are generous souls, too!
John Marzluff, conservation ecologist at the University of Washington said that crows take part in “gifting” by leaving behind keys, lost earrings, bones, or rocks, for the people who feed them.
How to befriend a crow
According to Pet Helpful, following these steps can help you to become friends with a crow:
Advertisement
Find food that the crows seem to like and keep it in stock. Crows tend to like nuts and seeds
Establish a regular feeding schedule so they know when to expect you and can create a rhythm with them
Don’t overdo it — you don’t need to feed them meals, just enough for them to know that you care and want to befriend them
Don’t overdo it. Don’t feed them so much or so often that they become dependent—just a handful of something to show you care.
Don’t just throw the food out there and walk away. Stay at a respectful distance to watch them eat. You may see them eat it on the spot, or they might choose carefully and fly off to cache it for later
Don’t get too close to them as they prefer to be standoffish and may feel threatened
But that doesn’t mean every author is a fan of their works’ film or telly counterparts.
Advertisement
Here, we rounded up eight authors who criticised adaptations of their books:
1) E.B. White wasn’t delighted with 1973’s Charlotte’s Web
E.B. White, who wrote the 1952 children’s book, had been in negotiations with the production team John and Faith Hubley.
Eventually, Hanna-Barbera got the rights instead. After their animated 1973 movie came out, White wrote: “The movie of Charlotte’s Web is about what I expected it to be. The story is interrupted every few minutes so that somebody can sing a jolly song. I don’t care much for jolly songs. The Blue Hill Fair, which I tried to report faithfully in the book, has become a Disney World, with 76 trombones.”
His wife, meanwhile, told would-be director of the abandoned original adaptation, Gene Dietch, “We have never ceased to regret that your version of Charlotte’s Web never got made. The Hanna-Barbera version has never pleased either of us.”
Advertisement
2) Truman Capote didn’t love 1961’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Author Truman Capote spent many years disparaging the movie based on his 1958 novel, calling it the “most miscast” movie (he’d wanted Marilyn Monroe for the part Audrey Hepburn got).
When asked what he didn’t like about the adaptation, he replied, “Oh god, just everything” – the book’s narrator role changes, as does the book’s ending.
3) Stephen King had issues with 1980’s The Shining
Advertisement
Speaking to The Paris Review about Kubrick’s version of his story, King said he thought the movie was “Too cold. No sense of emotional investment in the family whatsoever on his part”.
He added that Shelley Duvall as Wendy was “insulting to women. She’s basically a scream machine…
“And Kubrick didn’t seem to have any idea that Jack Nicholson was playing the same motorcycle psycho that he played in all those biker films he did… The guy is crazy. So where is the tragedy if the guy shows up for his job interview and he’s already bonkers? No, I hated what Kubrick did with that.”
The writer had penned his own version of the script, which Kubrick didn’t use.
4) Rick Riordan disavowed the 2010 Percy Jackson and The Lightning Thief flick
Advertisement
Author Rick Riordan let his feelings about the adaptation be known on X, where he likened the movie to “my life’s work going through a meat grinder when I pleaded with [the studio] not to do it.”
He also posted, “I still have not seen the movies, and don’t plan on ever doing so… I judge them from having read the scripts because I care most about the story. I certainly have nothing against the very talented actors. Not their fault. I’m just sorry they got dragged into that mess.”
Still, the writer hinted he was “gonna fix” this with Disney+’s 2023 series, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, for which he had more oversight.
5) Michael Ende called 1984’s The Neverending Story “revolting”
Advertisement
Going so far as to remove his name from the movie’s credits, Ende publicly described the movie as “revolting” and claimed, “the makers of the film simply did not understand the book at all”.
The author even reportedly tried (and failed) to sue in order to stop the movie from going out, saying his “moral and artistic existence is at stake in this film”.
6) PL Travers had such a contentious relationship with Disney due to Mary Poppins, there’s a whole film about it
The film, which won a remarkable five Oscars, had a very different nanny to the one in PL Travers’ books (she “never wastes time being nice”) – Travers also disliked the fact that Disney made Mrs Banks a Suffragette.
Advertisement
So contentious was her relationship with Walt Disney that the movie Saving Mr Banks was made to chronicle the making of the film.
7) Alan Moore, the mind behind V for Vendetta’s comics, called the 2005 movie’s writing “rubbish”
When asked to weigh in on the adaptation, Moore said: “I’ve read the screenplay. It’s rubbish”.
He also told the New York Times that for a lot of the DC projects that had become movies, “I don’t want anything more to do with these works because they were stolen from me – knowingly stolen from me.”
8) Moore also slammed the Watchmen film
Advertisement
The writer, who claimed the studio was using his brother’s serious illness to pressure him, said of the movie: “curse this wretched film and everything connected with it”.
Speaking to GQ, meanwhile, he said: “I would be the last person to want to sit through any adaptations of my work.
“From what I’ve heard of them, it would be enormously punishing. It would be torturous, and for no very good reason… It seemed to me that what people were taking away from works like Watchmen or V For Vendetta wasn’t the storytelling techniques, which to me seemed to be the most important part of it. It was instead this greater leeway with violence and with sexual references. Tits and innards.”
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the more I shop, the more I want. That is the plight of a shopping writer.
While I’m lucky enough to test probably close to a thousand products a year, I can’t help but build a wishlist of more fashion, beauty, jewellery, and wellness bits and bobs I want along the way.
And while I’ve already rounded up all of the products I loved in July, if you’re looking for shopping inspiration, I thought I’d be generous and share what’s on my wishlist this payday. Just don’t sell it out before I have a chance to buy it too!
The parliamentary standards watchdog has opened an investigation into Reform UK deputy Richard Tice. The allegation focuses on Tice failing to declare an interest that related to a Commons debate on Israeli influence.
Tice himself has disputed media reporting, although the following claim is in part at odds with what the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stated.
Contrary to garbage in media:
I am being investigated for standing against antisemitism. You could not make it up.
Advertisement
Standards Commissioner is considering complaint by anti semitic anti Israel lobby group over whether I should have referenced my register of interests at start of…
Richard Tice claims probe is over antisemitism stance
In full, Tice said:
Contrary to garbage in media:
I am being investigated for standing against antisemitism. You could not make it up.
Advertisement
Standards Commissioner is considering complaint by anti semitic anti Israel lobby group over whether I should have referenced my register of interests at start of a debate on UK democracy and Israeli influence.
The same anti Israel group failed to notify Commissioner that Ayoub Khan MP did not declare his substantial donation received from a pro Palestine group.
Reform said Tice did not mention in his 22 June speech that he had been on a trip to Israel last September, funded by a pro-Israel lobbying group.
The trip has been listed in Tice’s Declaration of Members’ Interests.
Here is what the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner published regarding the ongoing investigation:
Therefore, it is not the case that the commissioner is investigating Tice for “standing against antisemitism”, as he suggested.
The ‘Rule 6’ stipulates:
Advertisement
Members must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its committees, and in any communications with ministers, members, public officials or public office holders.
Additional guidance states that MPs can refer to register of interests entries but:
Such a reference will not suffice on its own, as the declaration must provide sufficient information to convey the nature of the interest without the listener or the reader having to have recourse to the Register or other publication.
Israeli influence
The debate in question happened as a result of a Parliament petition passing 100,000 signatures. The petition read:
We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.
We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate.
Our family bathrooms may not be dedicated to them the way that they were in the ’90s, but dolphins are still a really popular mammal. I mean, of course they are, look at their wee faces!
One thing we have been learning over time, however, is that they are a lot more mischevious than we first thought. For example, did you know that dolphins like to swim through self-made bubbles and surf in waves? Adorable!
However, I just learned something about these scamps of the ocean that is both horrifying and, to be honest, absolutely hilarious.
The reason why dolphins taunt pufferfish
Advertisement
In a BBC series called Spy In The Pod, a documentary that used hidden cameras disguised as tuna and squid, to go into the heart of the dolphin’s world and get up close with their everyday lives.
One part of the footage revealed that dolphins appear to get high off pufferfish defence chemicals.
According to The Smithsonian, pufferfish produce a potent defensive chemical, which they eject when threatened. In small enough doses, however, the toxin seems to induce “a trance-like state” in dolphins that come into contact with it.
In the documentary, the dolphins gently played with the pufferfish, passing it between one another (puff, puff, pass, anyone?) which was in direct contradiction to what they did with other fish, which they immediately tore apart.
Advertisement
In a hilarious development, the dolphins were also filmed floating just underneath the water’s surface, mesmerised by their own reflections. Just like we do in club toilets at 2am!
Researchers believe this was not a one-off
Speaking to the Daily Mail, series producer Rob Pilley said that he didn’t believe this was a one-off encounter, saying: “The dolphins were specifically going for the puffers and deliberately handling them with care.”
There are many miserable people in Great Britain who love to spread their misery around. One such person is Jeremy Clarkson, who seemingly spends his free time devising new ways to belittle benefit claimants.
NEW: Jeremy Clarkson says benefits claimants should be forced to write a genuine thank you email to a random worker every week
“It is SO kind of you to go to work every day so that I don’t have to. Thanks to you I was able to buy an even bigger television this week”
As many have pointed out, Clarkson himself is a beneficiary of government money. In other words, expect a thank you letter from him sometime soon.
Jeremy Clarkson, the meat w*nker
In his latest piece for the Times, Clarkson compares welfare recipients to dogs. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the broadcaster suggested that welfare recipients are actually worse than animals, because “at least dogs are grateful”.
Speaking of gratitude, now is a good time to remind you Clarkson once punched a man because the platter of meat he brought was cold — not hot, as Jeremy would have preferred. Is this the famous ‘gratitude’ he’s speaking of?
As I’m sure you’ve heard, there are now more than a million young people in this country who are not working. They’re not even looking for work. They’re just sitting at home all day, gormlessly watching shortform nonsense on their massive vulgarsonic televisions.
Nearly a million young people being out of work is true. The idea that none of them are “even looking for work” is some shite he made up. Also, we’re not sure he should be criticising people for “gormlessly watching nonsense on television” given that he was the host of Top Gear.
If you live in the world, you’re no doubt unsurprised to learn that a significant number of young people are out of work. The high streets are run down, many jobs have been lost to automation, and people can’t afford to go out, which means fewer jobs in hospitality. These are all areas in which young people traditionally worked, so of course fewer of them are in work.
While he’s coming at it from the wrong angle, Clarkson isn’t wrong to suggest social media is having an impact. Because of phones, we’re never more than a swipe away from seeing how the other half lives. You don’t think that will instill a sense of hopelessness in young people who can’t even get an interview in retail?
Clarkson clueless about PIP
Like everyone on the right, Clarkson doesn’t understand how Personal Independence Payments (PIP) work. Clarkson suggests they’re given to people for not working, but Rachel Charlton-Dailey explained:
PIP isn’t an out-of-work benefit and has nothing to do with employment.
Here’s what Clarkson said:
And what makes this especially dispiriting is that if they’ve got ants in their pants, or ADHD as it’s now called, or some other head-based issue with an acronym, the state will give them up to £194 a week. Which is £100 more than they’d get if they got off their arses and did some kind of part-time work in the local shop.
Charlton-Dailey reported that about four in 10 claimants with ADHD receive the top rate of £194. As this is PIP, many will be in work because that’s how PIP functions.
Advertisement
Misery loves company
Clarkson’s piece contains a long section about his dogs, in which he admits that they sometimes shit in his house (training issue). He then gets to his idea to belittle benefit claimants:
It’s very simple. Every week, when the benefits are paid, the recipient is given the email address of a randomly selected person who is getting up and going to work every day. And they are told that unless a proper and genuine email is sent, thanking the working person for their generosity, the benefits will stop. And I’m not talking about a cursory “thanks mate”. I want fulsomeness. I want to hear what they’ve done with the £194 I gave them that week. And I want effusiveness as well. I want to feel their gratitude.
“It is SO kind of you to go to work every day so that I don’t have to. Thanks to you I was able to buy an even bigger television this week”
This way, the communists in the Labour party would be happy because the benefits are still being paid. And the taxpayer will feel a bit better too because they’re at least being thanked.
This might not need pointing out, but this is blatant right-wing propaganda. We have a benefits system to ensure:
Advertisement
Those who become unemployed can survive between jobs
Sick and disabled people don’t become homeless
People of retirement age are able to retire
£29 a week doesn't even cover a basic grocery top-up, yet @JeremyClarkson thinks disabled people and trauma survivors owe the public a handwritten thank-you note for it. https://t.co/KonzXmfD2v
The benefits system was designed to benefit everyone besides the ultra-wealthy — the people who will never require government support for themselves or their loved ones. The reason they’ll never require it isn’t because they’re inherently better than us; it’s because they and their ancestors benefitted from the fruits of other people’s labour.
Jeremy Clarkson benefits from govt handouts
These ultra-wealthy people use their position of influence to highlight the small numbers of people who are, admittedly, taking the piss, to tarnish the reputation of the entire benefits system. For what? So they can get away with paying less tax?
Advertisement
Clarkson has an estimated net worth of £50 million by the way. Despite this, he’s accepted the following government and EU subsidies:
Environmental Stewardship scheme (£116,352)
Basic Payment Scheme (£133,733)
The government subsidises things like farming because crops — much like people — are needed to ensure society remains functional. The right-wing press doesn’t criticise farming subsidies because the land barons who benefit from them are often right-wing themselves. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Says the man who bought a farm partly to avoid inheritance tax! He should write one to the 35,000 grieving relatives who have to pay it this year saying thanks for paying it so farmers can have a £2.5m allowance and half the rate of tax above that! https://t.co/cuVU9XH26S
This aside, there is a method for people to make money without working, and that method is to be born wealthy.
If a person has a million pounds, they can pay a second person to turn that fortune into more money through investing and asset hoarding. Over time, this has led to a situation in which global wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. And wouldn’t you know it, this has also coincided with there being fewer opportunities for ordinary working people.
To be fair to Jeremy Clarkson, he does seem like someone who works hard. The problem is, he works hard at being a f*cking knucklehead.
The longer we allow the rich to seize all the wealth, the worse things will get. The worse things get, the more that the rich will blame us for the problems they created.
It depicted himself seated at a table with Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Trump in the image is wearing clothing almost identical to Lincoln’s, and the three are shown signing an upside-down U.S. map:
Some of Trump’s other weekend images included him gazing at a younger version of himself in the uniform he wore during his time in a private military academy as a teen, as well as one of himself as some kind of Revolutionary War hero.
Trump, however, never actually served in the military.
Trump was of draft age during the Vietnam War, but received four deferments for college and one for bone spurs in his heels.
Advertisement
He later infamously told radio host Howard Stern that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases was “my personal Vietnam.”
Trump’s critics slammed him for obsessively posting AI slop images of himself instead of focusing on the war in Iran, affordability or any other issue far more important to the American people:
(@TiceRichard) 
NEW: Jeremy Clarkson says benefits claimants should be forced to write a genuine thank you email to a random worker every week
You must be logged in to post a comment Login